Home > As Opposition to Syria Strike Builds, NBC's Russert Tries to Whip Up Support

As Opposition to Syria Strike Builds, NBC's Russert Tries to Whip Up Support

By

Kyle Drennen

September 6, 2013 - 5:59pm

In back-to-back interviews with members on Congress on Friday's MSNBC Daily Rundown,
fill-in host Luke Russert desperately tried to sell Democrats and
Republicans on the importance of supporting President Obama taking
military action against Syria. [Listen to the audio[1]]

Talking to Democratic Virginia Congressman Gerry Connolly, Russert
worried: "How much of this do you think, within your caucus, falls on
this idea of, 'Okay, we're not necessarily comfortable with the idea of
launching any missiles into Syria, but God help us, if we cut
the President off here at the knees he becomes a lame duck quite early
in his term and looks entirely weak. So we're going to kind of
go along with him here in order to preserve his ability to govern on
other major issues.' Is there an element of that here?"

Connolly seized the opportunity to deny any political calculation on
the part of Democrats and bash Republicans: "People have pretty much
been dealing with the merits of the case, not about the politics of it,
on our side. On the other side, some people have succumbed to, 'This is
an opportunity to whack the President,' and that's unfortunate."

Later,
in an interview with Republican Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger,
who supports striking Syria, Russert attempted to dismiss broader GOP
opposition: "Some of the latest informal whip counts place support for
any type of action in Syria from the Republican side as maybe getting 50
or 70 votes from your conference. Do you think this is a new
GOP that's more libertarian and isolationist in nature or this
straight-up opposition to President Obama and anything that he
supports?"

In part, Kinzinger responded: "I don't think it's either of
that....this is actually the first time, literally the first time in
probably five years, at least the 2 ½ years I've been in Congress, when
the President's actually reached out to the Republicans on anything....I
will put a lot of the struggle right now in Washington on the President
of the United states."

Kinzinger provided an impassioned defense of military intervention,
noting that in Bashar Assad's chemical attacks, Syrian children had
"suffocated to death with the pure knowledge that they were suffocating
to death....Their life was snuffed out in a very evil way by a very evil
man."

Russert quickly tried to guilt Congress: "...obviously, a lot of
pressure is on President Obama to try to deliver these votes, but if
Congress doesn't join him here, is Congress also letting down those kids
that you've just mentioned, if they don't back the President on this –
in this resolution?"

Kinzinger pushed back: "Well, look, I don't think Congress is letting
down anybody. I think Congress has to debate what the issues are and
make a decision....A sophomore Congressman from Illinois is not the
commander-in-chief and I shouldn't be the one out having to sell this to
the American people. [President Obama's] got to be a leader on this."

Here is a portion of Russert's September 6 exchange with Connolly:

9:22AM ET

(...)

LUKE RUSSERT: How much of this do you think, within your caucus, falls
on this idea of, "Okay, we're not necessarily comfortable with the idea
of launching any missiles into Syria, but God help us, if we cut the
President off here at the knees he becomes a lame duck quite early in
his term and looks entirely weak. So we're going to kind of go along
with him here in order to preserve his ability to govern on other major
issues." Is there an element of that here?

GERRY CONNOLLY [REP. D-VA]: I think there probably is in the back of
people's minds but so far it hasn't surfaced in people's thinking
explicitly. People have pretty much been dealing with the merits of the
case, not about the politics of it, on our side. On the other side, some
people have succumbed to, "This is an opportunity to whack the
President," and that's unfortunate. But there are also, I think, men and
women of conscious by and large on both sides, who are really wrestling
with this issue.

RUSSERT: From your conversations with your Republican colleagues,
they're obviously in this very interesting position. Because one of the
central tenets, you know, of their entire governing philosophy has been
strong on national defense. You know, be aggressive abroad when need be,
show American might and strength. But that sort of seems to have gone
out the wayside in the last few years and it's been more of a
libertarian infiltration.

From sort of the rank and file folks you've talked to on the
Republican side, where are they falling on this in terms of their
electoral future? Because it almost seems right now that a vote for this
resolution could possibly open you up to a primary challenge. I mean,
Mitch McConnell has been quite silent about Syria because he's worried
about a fallout from the Tea Party.

CONNOLLY: Yeah, I think that's a real dynamic, Luke. Instead of sort
of really genuinely trying to tackle this as a vote of conscious, some
of my colleagues on the other side have succumbed to the politics of the
moment. And that is to exploit a perceived vulnerability when the
President came to Congress.

I find it ironic, because many of those same people were not so long
ago pillaring this president for leading from behind on Syria, not doing
enough. And not consulting with Congress. So he has, you know, we're
trying to restrict what the response is, and he comes to Congress, and
they kick sand in his face. So not everybody, but some of those very
same people you're describing, not so long ago were critics for not
doing enough in Syria.

(...)

Here is a portion of Russert's exchange with Kinzinger:

9:34AM ET

(...)

LUKE RUSSERT: Some of the latest informal whip counts place support
for any type of action in Syria from the Republican side as maybe
getting 50 or 70 votes from your conference. Do you think this is a new
GOP that's more libertarian and isolationist in nature or this
straight-up opposition to President Obama and anything that he supports?

ADAM KINZINGER [REP. R-IL]: I don't think it's either of that. I mean,
look, we obviously have a group in the Republicans that are – and you
see them on the news all the time – that are talking about the United
States needing to disengage from the rest of the world. But the vast
majority of Republicans still understand the need for a strong United
States.

What's happened here, though, is this is actually the first time,
literally the first time in probably five years, at least the 2 ½ years
I've been in Congress, when the President's actually reached out to the
Republicans on anything. I mean, we may have had a big meeting or
something, but typically he's never talked to us. And so now what you're
seeing is, I think, a lack of really belief that this president has a
plan.

Look, I'm supportive of action in Syria. I think it has to be done. I
think for decades America's put down a red line saying no chemical
weapons. But I will put a lot of the struggle right now in Washington on
the President of the United states. He needs to be all over television
selling this to the American people. Any beginning of any military
action has never been popular in the United States of America until its
leaders come forward and talk about what exactly we want to accomplish
there. Secretary Kerry's done a great job. President Obama really
hasn't.

RUSSERT: It's an interesting dynamic you bring up. Because what we
hear so much from your colleagues is that you're getting these phone
calls, they're almost 90 to 10 opposed to any type of action. We just
had Congressman Connolly on the show and he says, "Look, once you
explain it to people, they end up being more supportive." Have you found
that to be true? That if you had a conversation in a town hall, that
you've been able to sort of change some hearts and minds on this?

KINZINGER: Oh, sure. I give people all the time to come up and say,
you know, "No bombs in Syria." And then I explain the fact that American
troops have never faced chemical weapons on the battlefield since World
War I because we've held very strong to the fact that chemical weapons
are not acceptable.

You look back in Desert Storm in '91. President H.W. Bush basically
sent a veiled threat to Saddam Hussein through Tariq Aziz that they
would face, in essence, a nuclear strike if they used chemical weapons
against our troops.

Failure to enforce this red line today on chemical weapons – and
enforcing that means making the use of chemical weapons far more costly
to Assad than any benefit he gains from it. Failure to enforce that
means I think we've lost legitimacy to enforce a chemical weapons ban
any time into the future. I mean, if anything like this happens again,
how do we now say that while in this case, whatever that case in the
future is, we are going to enforce a ban on chemical weapons, even
though we didn't under Assad?

Keep in mind one thing, young children suffocated to death with the
pure knowledge that they were suffocating to death. Kids who loved their
mom and dad, who had hopes and dreams and aspirations. Their life was
snuffed out in a very evil way by a very evil man. And God help us as a
country if we don't stand up and say that there's going to be a price to
pay for doing that.

RUSSERT: Congress has passed this Syrian Accountability Act. And
there's this idea now that – well, obviously, a lot of pressure is on
President Obama to try to deliver these votes, but if Congress doesn't
join him here, is Congress also letting down those kids that you've just
mentioned, if they don't back the President on this – in this
resolution?

KINZINGER: Well, look, I don't think Congress is letting down anybody.
I think Congress has to debate what the issues are and make a decision.
We did pass the Syrian Accountability Act and that's something I keep
reminding all my colleagues. I also didn't hear a lot of people being
opposed to this quote/unquote "red line" we hear so much about a year
ago when the red line was put down. Now that it's actually happened, I
think it's up to the President.

Look, he's the commander-in-chief. A sophomore Congressman from
Illinois is not the commander-in-chief and I shouldn't be the one out
having to sell this to the American people. He's got to be a leader on
this. You look even back as far as, I think, Bosnia, and the American
people did not support strikes on Bosnia and in Kosovo. But in
hindsight, we see that those strikes actually are very popular nowadays,
accomplished a lot.

He needs to put out what the plan is, what the future is. And I think
it's very simple. Make the cost of using chemical weapons far exceed any
benefit gained by Assad and every time he thinks about using chemical
weapons there, that's going to go into his mind, this is going to cost
me 'X' amount and it's far too great than what I gain.

(...)

-- Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here[2] to follow Kyle Drennen on Twitter.

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.